Section: If he acknowledges for an heir, then he ceases to be an heir—such as a man who acknowledges for his brother while he has no child, then a son is born to him—his acknowledgement for him is not valid. If he acknowledges for a non-heir, then he becomes an heir, his acknowledgement for him is valid. Ahmad stipulated this in a narration by Ibn Mansur: If he acknowledges a debt for a woman during illness, then marries her, his acknowledgement is permitted because he is not suspected. The view of Sufyan was recounted to him regarding a man who has two sons, and he acknowledges a debt to one of them during his illness, then the son dies, leaving a son while the father is alive, and then [the father] dies after that; it is permitted, but Ahmad said: It is not permitted. 'Uthman al-Batti held this view as well. Abu al-Khattab mentioned another narration in the two cases that contradicts what we have said, which is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri and al-Shafi'i; because it is a meaning in which the absence of inheritance is considered, so the consideration therein is based on the state of death, like a will. Our view is that it is a statement in which suspicion is considered, so it is considered at the time of its existence, not otherwise, like testimony. Furthermore, when he acknowledges for a non-heir, the acknowledgement is established and valid because it occurred from its authorized subject while free from suspicion, so the right is established by it, and no nullifier for it has been found, so it does not lapse. When he acknowledges for an heir, it occurs as void due to the association of suspicion with it, so it is not valid after that. Moreover, it is an acknowledgement for an heir, so it is not valid, just as if the inheritance had continued. If he acknowledges for a non-heir, it is valid and remains so, just as if the non-inheritance had continued. As for a will, it is a gift after death, so the state of death is considered in it, unlike our current issue.

Section: If he acknowledges for an heir and a stranger, it is void regarding the heir and valid regarding the stranger. It is possible that it is not valid regarding the stranger, just as if he provided testimony in which he draws some benefit to himself, his testimony would be void in its entirety, or as if he testified for his son and a stranger. Abu Hanifa said: If he acknowledges for both of them a debt from a partnership and the stranger confesses to the partnership, the acknowledgement is valid for both of them; but if he denies it, it is valid for [the stranger] but not for the heir. Our view is that it is an acknowledgement for an heir and a stranger, so it is valid for the stranger but not for the heir, just as if he acknowledged it in two separate expressions, or as if the stranger denied the partnership. Acknowledgement differs from testimony due to the strength of acknowledgement.